ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 133A, not being under oath, has no evidentiary value unless supported by credible material evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided evidence of customer jewelry being held for repair and remodeling, and that cash withdrawals were not immediately updated in the cash book. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on the initial surrender which was later retracted with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 263 to be valid, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. In this case, the assessee provided evidence demonstrating that the PCIT's assumption of income escapement was due to an incorrect appreciation of facts, and the PCIT had not controverted this. Therefore, the PCIT's action was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's jurisdiction was improperly exercised concerning purchases from Ajay Rawat, as the sales by Ajay Rawat were explained and accepted by the CIT(A). However, for other issues, including discrepancies in net profit and unverified purchases from Ambaji Hallmark Gold, the Tribunal found no infirmity and confirmed the PCIT's order to that extent.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions were made in the hands of Amarnath Pyasi for the same property and that appeals were pending. The Tribunal found it unclear that the investment could be assessed in both hands. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to consider both assessment orders together.